**The core facts are substantively accurate.**
In October 2014, the Department of Immigration ordered Save the Children to remove 10 staff members from Nauru [1].
* * * *
Nine were subsequently deported; one had already left the island [2].
The workers had reported allegations of sexual abuse against women and children at the detention centre, including claims that women were forced to exchange sexual favours with guards for shower access [3].
It explicitly found "no information to prove" allegations that Save the Children staff had encouraged refugees to self-harm or manipulated abuse allegations [5].
Immigration Department Secretary Mike Pezullo confirmed in March 2015: "The report does not find any conclusive evidence that the Save The Children employees in any way actively encouraged protest activity or the like" [7].
The statement acknowledged it "had no reason to cause doubt to be cast on the SCA employees' reputation" and regretted "any hurt and embarrassment caused" [10].
Professor Christopher Doogan's subsequent review determined the dismissals were ordered "for political reasons on no evidence or reliable information" [11].
**The claim omits important context about the broader situation.**
The Moss Review did confirm genuine instances of sexual assault and abuse at the Nauru detention centre, including rapes, sexual assault of minors, and guards trading drugs for sexual favours [12].
* * * *
The review documented serious systemic failures in the management of the centre, which the Immigration Department acknowledged required significant overhaul [13].
While the allegations against Save The Children staff proved unfounded, the underlying abuse they reported was substantiated by the same Moss Review [14].
The dismissal was ordered in October 2014 by the Immigration Department, with then-Immigration Minister Scott Morrison stating his information suggested "there may have been a level of coaching and facilitation" [15].
The article is factually accurate regarding the Moss Review findings, but readers should note the source's left-wing orientation when assessing potential framing [18].
The claim's core facts are corroborated by multiple mainstream sources including ABC News [19], The Sydney Morning Herald [20], The Guardian [21], and Radio New Zealand [22], all of which reported substantially the same facts about the Moss Review clearing the Save the Children workers.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government Nauru detention centre staff removed allegations"
**Critical context on offshore detention policy:**
The Nauru detention centre was not created by the Coalition.
* * * *
The "Pacific Solution" was originally implemented by the Howard government in 2001 with **bipartisan support from the Labor opposition** at the time [23].
When the Coalition took office in September 2013, they were inheriting a detention system that Labor had re-established just one year prior.
**Labor's record on detention centre management:**
During Labor's management of Nauru (August 2012 - September 2013), there were also serious incidents, including riots that caused extensive damage [26].
Both parties have faced criticism for conditions in offshore detention facilities.
**Key distinction:** There is no direct equivalent of Labor removing aid workers based on unsubstantiated allegations.
However, the broader context is that both major Australian parties have implemented and maintained offshore detention policies with documented problems.
**What the full story reveals:**
While the Coalition government acted improperly by removing Save The Children staff without evidence, the context is important:
1. **Genuine abuse was occurring:** The Moss Review substantiated serious sexual and physical abuse allegations at the Nauru detention centre, including guards trading marijuana for sexual favours and assaults on minors [28].
The Save the Children workers who were removed had been documenting these real problems [29].
2. **Administrative failure:** The government's decision to remove the workers appears to have been a reaction to their reporting of abuse rather than legitimate concerns about their conduct.
Professor Doogan found the dismissals were politically motivated [30].
3. **Eventual accountability:** The Department accepted all Moss Review recommendations, paid compensation, and issued a formal statement of regret [31].
4. **Bipartisan policy context:** Offshore detention has been supported by both parties.
Both governments have faced serious criticism regarding conditions in these facilities [32].
**Scott Morrison's response:** Unlike the Department's eventual apology, then-Immigration Minister Scott Morrison refused to apologize personally, maintaining his actions were based on information available at the time [33].
The Coalition government did remove 10 Save the Children workers from Nauru in October 2014, and the subsequent Moss Review (March 2015) found no evidence to support the allegations against them.
Professor Doogan's review further found the dismissals were politically motivated "on no evidence."
However, the claim presents this incident without broader context about the genuine abuse problems at the Nauru facility (which the same Moss Review confirmed), the Labor government's role in reopening offshore detention in 2012, and the bipartisan nature of Australia's offshore detention policy.
The Coalition government did remove 10 Save the Children workers from Nauru in October 2014, and the subsequent Moss Review (March 2015) found no evidence to support the allegations against them.
Professor Doogan's review further found the dismissals were politically motivated "on no evidence."
However, the claim presents this incident without broader context about the genuine abuse problems at the Nauru facility (which the same Moss Review confirmed), the Labor government's role in reopening offshore detention in 2012, and the bipartisan nature of Australia's offshore detention policy.